Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?

[Clark Johnsen <clarkjohnsen@xxxxxxxxx>]

>
> Richard Hess wrote:



>
> Their approach is increasing the likelihood that the references used to
> craft articles have been peer reviewed. Their point is similar to Tom's
> about triangulation, just quoting original data without interpretation can
> get really confusing and can lead to misleading conclusions. Their
> assumption is if the secondary source makes the interpretation and it has
> been published then it is likely to be somewhat mainstream.


And yet... and yet...

I endeavored for a time to clean up the contentiousness and errors of their
"Audiophile" entry, but kept getting reverted. Quickly, too! The main writer
was obviously an anti-audiophile and on the case daily. But today I looked
and some of what I objected to has been removed (that's today, of course).
But as for the vaunted triangulation, try this:

 [edit<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Audiophile&action=edit&section=13>
] Criticism of audiophile marketing practices

*Criticisms usually focus on claims around so-called "tweaks" and
accessories beyond the core source, amplification, and speaker products.
Examples of these accessories include speaker cables, component
interconnects, stones, cones, CD markers, and power cables or conditioners.
[12] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile#cite_note-11>*

"Stones, cones..."? How fatuous is* that*? And how did the writer choose
among the various availabilities? (My answer: Very selectively.)

 *Manufacturers of these products often make strong claims of actual
improvement in sound but do not offer any measurements or testable claims.
This absence of measurable (rather than subjective) improvement, coupled
with sometimes high prices, raises questions about the truthfulness of the
marketing.[13]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile#cite_note-Russell-12>
*

As one might suppose, manufacturers have indeed offered "testable claims".
Nor is there any lack of "measurable improvement". The writer merely does
not wish this to be so, and there's no denying him or reverting him.

*It is possible to spend over one hundred thousand dollars for a pair of
loudspeakers, tens of thousands of dollars for electronics, and more than
seven thousand dollars for
cables.[14]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile#cite_note-13>
*

Quelle horreur!

* An example of this type of marketing, and the associated reviews in
magazines, is the $1499 power cord, for which the reviewer states that "The
choice of power cord one makes to transmit AC over the final feet to a
component has the potential to be the most influential sonic link in a music
system's power chain."[15]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile#cite_note-14>
*

And that statement is incorrect, how, exactly? And what makes it a matter of
"marketing" anyway? Alternatively, everything is marketing.

*Roger Russell – a former engineer and speaker designer for **McIntosh
Labs*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntosh_Labs>
* – describes the introduction of expensive speaker wire brands, and
critiques their performance in his online essay called Speaker Wire - A
History.[13] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile#cite_note-Russell-12>*

That's an essay that has been challenged and disproven time and again, both
for its own contentiousness and its laughable experimental procedures. And
it was first written over a decade ago. Plus the author worked for a company
(McIntosh) whose corporate stand is against such things happening (i.e. all
you need to do is buy our stuff, hook it up and be happy). And again no
mention of the contrary has been allowed.

In short, Jimmy has (unwittingly?) allowed unsubstantiated "primary" sources
to stand alone. Would there were, triangulation!

clark